Cultural modernity and behavioral modernity – “Some societies have gone farther than others along the trajectory that leads to cultural modernity and, in time, behavioral modernity.” – another great post from peter frost! (he forgot to mention the likely effects of mating patterns on societies, but that’s ok. (~_^) )

The Split Personality of America – “The 20 states scoring highest on Neuroticism are all bordering to the [mississippi] river or east of it. Of the 20 states that score the lowest on this trait, 16 are in the western region – including all of the bottom 10.” – nice post from staffan!

bonus: Suicide rate up sharply – “‘The suicide rate among middle-aged Americans climbed a startling 28 percent in a decade, a period that included the recession and the mortgage crisis, the government reported Thursday. The trend was most pronounced among white men and women in that age group.'” – from mr. mangan.

““Everything You Have Learned in School is Wrong” – nightmare immigration stories from norway @gates of vienna. don’t miss the follow-up.”

Excellent. Well worth reading for everyone because it describes exactly what happens everywhere when you have large-scale bluecollar immigration into bluecollar communities – that last part is critical because violence is much more of a left-side thing. The majority of immigrants are initially young males and they congregate in concentrated areas so they become a local majority of young males. From that point they start attacking the natives for access to females showing the native girls that the native men can’t protect them with rape as a further reminder if needed.

Over the last 60 years exactly the same pattern described in the Norwegian article will have been repeated 1000s of times in 100s of US towns and cities.

It’s not even primarily about race or religion although that may make it worse in various ways. At root it’s stone age sexual behavior caused by competition over females.

The western political elites have been inflicting this on working class communities for 60 years with the media covering up the consequences.

Those two diagnoses in the reincarceration study would probably be the two most prominent impulsive behavior, inability-to-delay-gratification groups.

As for Norway (article sent to my son in Tromso), the trick has always been for white elites to make the blue-collar whites (or poor blacks) pay the cost of immigration. It’s a victory on so many levels: they can move to the better suburbs; they can feel superior to those other white people who aren’t tolerant like they are; they can even tell themselves that they are moving to get away from the intolerant whites, rather than the darker immigrants.

“The suicide rate among middle-aged Americans climbed a startling 28 percent in a decade, a period that included the recession and the mortgage crisis, the government reported Thursday. The trend was most pronounced among white men and women in that age group…”

Early interventions for kids with psychopathic traits may help some, but I suspect some are beyond help. As a kid I had a neighbor, X, who used to beat up younger kids and torture animals. He was extraordinary at telling lies. Most adults loved him and would praise him in our presence. I got the distinct impression that they did this to hint at what the rest of us should be aiming for.

We kids, and some adults even, knew about his real nature but we all realized it was pointless to say anything. I don’t see how you could intervene against a guy like that.

OT but I just picked up a copy of Van Den Berghe’s The Ethnic Phenomenon (after reading an old review by Steve Sailer). Based on the first chapter it looks like a classic. Exceptionally sharp and concise exposition of the issues dear to Hbd chick readers which holds up well after 30 years. I recommend it highly:

Has anyone read “The Making of Europe: Conquest, Colonization and Cultural Change 950 – 1350” by Robert Bartlett? Is it good? “How does it compare to Why Europe?: The Medieval Origins of Its Special Path” by Michael Mitterauer. I haven’t read either book and I’m trying to decide if I should buy one, both (I would only buy both if both are good and cover different topics), or neither.

@t – thanks, t! that’s the same study that i posted about here (and here), but now the researchers have published it formally (yay!). the data/results were online before, only from a presentation the researchers had given.

from the article you linked to:

“…Italians tended to have lower levels of relatedness, to each other and to other Europeans.”

– Greying Wanderer “Everything You Have Learned in School is Wrong” – nightmare immigration stories from norway

Excellent. Well worth reading for everyone because it describes exactly what happens everywhere when you have large-scale bluecollar immigration into bluecollar communities – that last part is critical because violence is much more of a left-side thing.

I agree, the working-class angle is crucial. We middle-class types can easily forget that physical violence at the interpersonal level is very much a class phenomenon even in the absence of racial and ethnic differences. Loretta Lynn reminds us of that:

Indeed, between class, race, and ethnicity it’s hard to separate things out causally. The Van Den Berghe book I referenced above is very good on these issues, not least because Van Den Bergheis not an hbd’er as it turns out. Rather he treats race purely as a social construct based on visual cues (skin color, etc.) and concentrates all of his attention on the twin issues of ethnicity (aka, inbreeding, kin selection, nepotism) and class. (Which is not to say he assumes race is unimportant, only that its phenotypical correlates — IQ, etc. — are.) It’s remarkable how much he can squeeze out of this approach.

@luke – “…race purely as a social construct based on visual cues (skin color, etc.)….”

the inherent contradictions there are pretty funny. (~_^)

Yeah, well, like a lot of the early “evolutionary psychologists” he only wanted to fight one war at a time I guess. Even so you’ll find his book well worth reading if you haven’t done so already. I’d be curious to know what his current views are.

Class = subethnicity. Classes are biological entities. I saw them defined on an HBD blog (Sailer? Half Sigma?) as your potential inlaws. When I see two men and I think “he could be married to that guy’s sister” then I consider them to be the same class, otherwise they are in different classes.

Luke
“I agree, the working-class angle is crucial. We middle-class types can easily forget that physical violence at the interpersonal level is very much a class phenomenon even in the absence of racial and ethnic differences”

No offence but that completely misses the point.

The point is the political elite importing large numbers of young men into a previously gender-balanced situation creates *extreme* competition over females and in bluecollar areas that plays out with extreme levels of interpersonal violence which the media doesn’t report because the vast majority of the victims of that interpersonal violence come from the original population.

Although it’s true bluecollar areas are more violent even under normal circumstances the *scale* of the violence in those kind of areas is an order of magnitude higher and the primary cause of the *scale* of the violence is the gender imbalance not class itself.

Ok, Greying Wanderer (and hbd chick) I’m roughly a third of the way through the first “article” if you can call it that. It lacks focus. It’s impressionistic to the point being tendentious. There’s no perspective, not even a pretense of objectivity. More like a Kafkaesque horror movie or somethin. How are you supposed to form some kind of judgment from writing like that? Where’s the journalism? I don’t get it.

It’s both a) the truth and b) the exact opposite of the media narrative of the last 60 years and c) briefly appeared in the MSM before it was pulled.

Maybe it’s a problem of translation or of my deteriorating reading skills, but there is no “narrative” there as far as I can see. I am not disputing the underlying facts or story or whatever you want to call it — let’s accept that for the sake of argument — only the pitiful reporting standards. I’d like to see a real story by a gifted journalist.

@luke – “Ok, Greying Wanderer (and hbd chick) I’m roughly a third of the way through the first ‘article’ if you can call it that. It lacks focus. It’s impressionistic to the point being tendentious. There’s no perspective, not even a pretense of objectivity. More like a Kafkaesque horror movie or somethin. How are you supposed to form some kind of judgment from writing like that? Where’s the journalism? I don’t get it.”

yeah, not my favorite style, either. (i also wonder if something got lost in translation.) but this is the “story telling” type article that you often find about the poor mexican illegal immigrant who has had to leave his entire family back in guadalajara — just from the other side. it’s the type of article that tries to pull at your heart strings, you know?

and it certainly did mine. i haven’t been so angry at reading something since i read about all the “grooming” cases in england. =/

@grey – “It’s both a) the truth and b) the exact opposite of the media narrative of the last 60 years and c) briefly appeared in the MSM before it was pulled.”

@luke – “Sorry. The truth is I couldn’t bear to read the details. I’ll go back and try and force myself.”

you really should. shocking stuff.

what never ceases to truly shock me though is how some parents out there are willing to sacrifice their children on the altar of righteous political correctness — and DO! it makes me sick. seems to be a favorite habit of pc scandinavians, too. ‘sup with that? =/

@grey – “…the political elite importing large numbers of young men into a previously gender-balanced situation creates *extreme* competition over females and in bluecollar areas that plays out with extreme levels of interpersonal violence which the media doesn’t report because the vast majority of the victims of that interpersonal violence come from the original population.”

@t – “Has anyone read ‘The Making of Europe: Conquest, Colonization and Cultural Change 950 – 1350’ by Robert Bartlett? Is it good? ‘How does it compare to Why Europe?: The Medieval Origins of Its Special Path’ by Michael Mitterauer. I haven’t read either book and I’m trying to decide if I should buy one, both (I would only buy both if both are good and cover different topics), or neither.”

i haven’t read bartlett’s book, so i can’t do you a comparison. but i HIGHLY recommend mitterauer’s book. he takes a topical look at the medieval period — everything from agriculture to feudalism and warfare techniques to monasticism to my favorite mating patterns (he is rather an expert on the history of the family in europe) — and he also draws comparisons with what was happening in europe within each of these “realms” and what was happening in china and the arab world. it’s really great stuff. you can sample it on google books, btw.

@luke – “I just picked up a copy of Van Den Berghe’s The Ethnic Phenomenon (after reading an old review by Steve Sailer). Based on the first chapter it looks like a classic. Exceptionally sharp and concise exposition of the issues dear to Hbd chick readers which holds up well after 30 years. I recommend it highly.”

@avi – “[T]he trick has always been for white elites to make the blue-collar whites (or poor blacks) pay the cost of immigration. It’s a victory on so many levels: they can move to the better suburbs; they can feel superior to those other white people who aren’t tolerant like they are; they can even tell themselves that they are moving to get away from the intolerant whites, rather than the darker immigrants.”

What I can’t figure out from your blog is how Western Christianity ever conquered tribalism in the first place. Certainly, today, Catholics and Protestants are completely defenseless against the tribes. Today, the only social groups which are holding their own against invading tribes are… other tribes.

Was it just complete intolerance and illiberality on the part of the early Christians? If so, does that mean that outbred individualism + liberalism is the fatal combination, but you could successfully have the former without the latter? But as far as I can tell, the former always, inevitably leads to the latter.

@bleach – “What I can’t figure out from your blog is how Western Christianity ever conquered tribalism in the first place.”

well, the working theory is that the forced outbreeding (forced by the church + secular authorities) set the stage for the selection against clannish and morally particularistic behaviors and sentiments, and at the same time for individualism and morally universalistic behaviors and sentiments.

the outbreeding breaks down the ties between clan members, and if you wind up with a society without clans, what sort of people succeed in life and reproduce? cue gregory clark.

this isn’t something that happened overnight. it took many, many generations over several hundred years.

what i want to know is: why did the (northern) europeans convert to christianity in the first place?

hbd chick – what never ceases to truly shock me though is how some parents out there are willing to sacrifice their children on the altar of righteous political correctness — and DO! it makes me sick. seems to be a favorite habit of pc scandinavians

Ok, I totally get it (or think I do) how this could happen from an elite point of view: they basically don’t care or don’t notice; and I can see how their ignorance/indifference could bias media coverage, especially if it might impact their pocketbook, social status, or what not (in the case of immigration). But how do you account for parental indifference? I mean genetically? That cries out for explanation. There must be some countervailing fitness consideration or something.

“well, the working theory is that the forced outbreeding (forced by the church + secular authorities) ”

I guess this is the part I find difficult, the practical aspects of how this could happen… it seems like it would require repression on par with a modern Bolshevik regime to affect this kind of change. Which seems unlikely for early medieval kingdoms to manage, with their level of technology and communications. It may be a simple matter to prevent them from getting a church wedding, but that’s not going to stop people from just getting married common law ( a la Braveheart) or just humping on the sly..

“But how do you account for parental indifference? I mean genetically? That cries out for explanation. There must be some countervailing fitness consideration or something.”

Denial is a powerful force. These people aren’t consciously sacrificing their children. They’re just hoping for the best case scenario wherein a) their children survive to reproduce and b) their descendents will all sit around singing Kumbayah with all the other ethnic groups.

.
bleach
“I guess this is the part I find difficult, the practical aspects of how this could happen… it seems like it would require repression on par with a modern Bolshevik regime to affect this kind of change”

But would it be that hard in new settlements if the new settlers all came from different villages? All you’d need to do is prevent arranged marriages with their cousins back home in their old villages. And do we have a lot of new settlements in northern europe in this time period – yup.

.
“But how do you account for parental indifference? I mean genetically?”

This comes back to the distortions of media/academia. Parents like this come from a mono-ethnic and mono-cultural background themselves but believe multi-ethnic and multi-cultural exposure will *help* their children i.e. they think it will improve their future prospects. That may be true in some situations but it’s not true in situations of recent and ongoing *mass* immigration into existing bluecollar populations but the parents don’t know that because the media doesn’t report it*.

how could new settlements be the answer, there had to be more people living in the old settlements than the new ones. it just stands to reason. most of the cities of Western Europe go back to Roman times or before. if a majority of people were still living near their extended kin I don’t see how you’d stop them from inbreeding., or how the smaller ppulation in new settlements could possibly be significant.

well, i think grey is thinking primarily of germany and the ostsiedlung. the settling of the east began in frankish austrasia and fanned out from there. there was a LOT of new settlements and settlers throughout the early medieval period, and yes — they would’ve largely been cut off from their families “back home” and probably would’ve had less chances to marry any cousins.

all of this is connected to the manor system in feudal europe, and manors existed in other areas as well (like england and france). in medieval europe, you had to get permission of the lord of your manor (either a secular lord or an ecclesiastical one) — if you lived on a manor, that is, which most people did — to marry. if your manor was run by monks, they probably definitely made sure that you didn’t marry a cousin. most of the lay lords probably did, too, since they probably didn’t want any troubles with the church.

all of this is slightly later in the medieval period, though, and the question as to how the anti-cousin marriage ball got rolling in the first place is a good one. the church probably couldn’t enforce their regulations at all very early in the period because it wasn’t until something like 1000 or 1100 (iirc) that weddings started to take place in churches. before then, people just … yeah, got hitched. [edit: yeah. i just double-checked goody — the 1100s in many places, like england and france, but not everywhere.]

there’s only two ways that i can imagine that the church could get people to abide by these regulations: 1) put pressure on the secular authorities (kings and princes), 2) preach every sunday from the pulpit that ya’ll will go to hell if you marry your cousins.

as for the first point, the church certainly did put pressure on the secular authorities wrt cousin marriages (including excommunicating some of THEM when they married cousins), and this can be seen in some of the early medieval secular laws like the law of wihtred from 690. remember that most of the very early medieval kingdoms were rather small in size — the law of wihtred covered just the kingdom of kent — so it ought to have been enforceable. who knows how well it was enforced, though. theoretically it could’ve been.

there were a lot of such secular laws in the various early medieval societies. as historian/anthropologist giorgio ausenda said:

“[T]he strenuous effort [by the Church] to penetrate the countryside entailed a long-drawn battle against traditional religion, whose vehicle was the kin group, and substituting the authority of the elders of the kin group with that of a religious elder, the presbyteros. At the same time the king’s rule was undermined by revolts on the part of the most powerful kin groups, clans or sections, whose conspiracies and murders menaced the power of the state. Thus Church and State became allies in trying to do aways with the political power of extended kin groups utilizing all manners of impositions. One of the most effective among them was to destroy their cohesiveness by prohibition of close kin marriage.“

(there was another law from early medieval england (can’t find it right now) which specified that if anybody was caught marrying their cousin, the man would be sold into slavery and the woman would become property of the bishop … or maybe it was the other way around. don’t remember! in any case, there were some severe punishments for these trangressions. again, how enforced they were, who knows?)

my second point above is that the clergy might’ve threatened their flock with eternal damnation if they didn’t abide by the church’s teachings. don’t know if this happened or not, but it very well could have. also, perhaps anyone who was a good christian would’ve wanted to follow the church’s teachings — you know — maybe they took their religion seriously. some people do.

in any case, like i said, none of this happened overnight. it probably took quite some time for the church and the secular authorities to get all the enforcement in line and get the system going. (and in some parts of western europe, like ireland and southern italy, enforcing the cousin marriage bans happened very late … or almost not at all.) but, by the 1300s in england and northern france, cousin marriage appears to be pretty much gone. it was a complete non-issue by that time in the ecclesiastical courts in those areas of europe.

my question still is: why did (northern) europeans convert to christianity at all?! how did THAT happen?

@luke – “But how do you account for *parental* indifference? I mean genetically? That cries out for explanation.”

yes. i don’t get it at all — and it bothers me when i see it. (bothers me a lot.) perhaps these people are “exceptions to the rule” — or perhaps, like greying “bubbles” wanderer suggests above, these people are so brainwashed that they actually believe that they’re doing something good for their kids. (how wrong could you be?!)

i wonder if this “mental illness” is particularly bad in scandinavia, though. i seem to hear an awful lot of these horror stories coming out of that area of the world. perhaps they’re easily brainwashed/particularly gullible? (perhaps it’s not a coincidence that a scandinavian wrote The Emperor’s New Clothes?) i mean, even in the u.s., where everyone seems to pay so much lip-service to political correctness, at least (white) people have the sense to move to the suburbs where there are “good schools” (i.e. mostly white kids and maybe some east asians). i know my parents did (thanks, parental units! (^_^) ).

“In the 11th century, agriculture expanded into the wilderness, in what are known as the “great clearances”.[4] During the High Middle Ages, many forests and marshes were cleared and cultivated.”

“Reasons for this expansion and colonization include…advancements in medieval technology allowing more land to be farmed…Land was plentiful while labour to clear and work the land was scarce; lords who owned the land found new ways to attract and keep labour…As new regions were settled, both internally and externally, population naturally increased.[1]”